ADDRESSING ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINATION THROUGH MARKET REGULATIONS: COMPARATIVE LESSONS FROM THE UNITED STATES AND THE EUROPEAN UNION

Alexandra Rosenbluth* Latravia Smith**

ABSTRACT

The existing legal frameworks in the United States (US) and the European Commission (EC) that regulate industrial chemicals represent divergent methods for controlling market entry, market restriction, and subsequent regulatory oversight when enforcement of these mechanisms fail. Contrary to the prevailing view that the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) law, which amended the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), is the ‘gold standard’ for chemical regulation, the central premise of this article is that the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act for the 21st Century provides unique opportunities for preventing environmental releases from new and existing chemical substances, which amounts to, if not more stringent, than REACH.

Keywords: REACH, TSCA, Lautenberg, toxic chemicals.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jsdlp.v7i2.1

---

* Graduated from the College of William & Mary in 2015 where she majored in Government and Environmental Science & Policy. Alexandra is now a community organizer at a small non-profit working on a just transition to renewable energy in Southern Oregon. During the summer of 2014, she served as a Policy Fellow at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Pollution Prevention & Toxics.

** A student at Florida A&M College of Law, Juris Doctor candidate, class of 2017. She is currently enrolled in the Center for International Law and Justice, which focuses on international and comparative law of developing nations. This past summer, she served as an Honors Law Clerk at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Enforcement Compliance Assurance. The information presented herein is a synthesis of their research. Note: the views and opinions expressed represent those of the authors and not necessarily those of the College of William & Mary, Florida A&M University College of Law, nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

TORT CHOICE OF LAW AND INTERNATIONAL FUNDAMENTAL NORMS: A CASE STUDY OF CANADA AND THE UNITED STATES

Chilenye Nwapi*

ABSTRACT

This article considers the tort choice of law rules in Canada and the United States – two highly internationalist societies with similar legal traditions but whose choice of law rules vary dramatically. The two jurisdictions are also known for their constant reference to international law in the resolution of domestic disputes. Moreover, Canada embodies both the common law and the civil law traditions. The aim here is twofold. The first is to evaluate the suitability of their choice of law rules for addressing cases alleging violations of international fundamental norms. The second is to see what other jurisdictions can learn from the experiences of these two jurisdictions in their adjudication of international norms. This article makes these principal findings. While none of the two jurisdictions has a choice of law rule specially attuned to deal with violations of international norms, the operative rule in Canada contains reasonable flexibility to meet the needs of such cases. It finds within the assortment of tort choice of law rules in the US, some rules that at least mention the interests of the international community as an important consideration in the choice of applicable law, and that US courts already do look to international law to determine certain substantive issues arising in cases brought under the Alien Tort Statute

---

* Fellow, Canadian Centre for International Justice; PhD (University of British Columbia); LLM (University of Calgary); LLB (Imo State University).